View report page

54
Parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark.
visits and notes of his observations and instructions thereon; and also the date
and nature of applications made to him; the date and result of the action
taken thereon, and of any action taken on previous reports; and shall produce
such book or books whenever required to the Sanitary Authority." Your
Committee are of opinion that this doty has been neglected. It is true that the
M.O.H. now keeps—dating from November 16th, 1896—a small memorandum
book; but in such form that he finds it impossible to answer any question on a
particular case which may be put to him. He stated that any similar books
which he might have kept were lost during the alterations. This is singularly
unfortunate, as these note books are the most important documents that the
Health Department possessed. It is scarely creditable that they should not
have been put in a place of safe custody. Had he preserved a proper record
much time would have been saved, and his duties would have been performed
in a much more satisfactory manner.
2.—As regards the withdrawal of the clerk in the Sanitary Department, this official
was withdrawn in order that he might be placed under some supervision. The
irregularity of the doctor's attendance, and the circumstance that he did not
carry out his obligation to attend at the office at certain definite hours induced
the Vestry to remove this officer to the General Office. Whenever the M.O.H.
required his services, they were placed at his disposal. As a matter of fact, the
M.O.H. did not supervise his work.
As regards the statement in the same Report that "the Sub-Committee ascribed
his inability to state whether or not he had visited Pardoner Street to the absence of
books, that did not represent the state of affairs;" and he reminded the Vestry that
Pardoner Street was formerly Henry Street, and "is still generally called by its
former name," your Committee observe that the doctor was appointed in May, 1892,
and the street was re-named in December, 1892. "Not recognising the name," he
continues, "I was unable to say whether I had or had not been there," and, "a little
later I explained to the Chairman my position, and requested him to amend my
answer, and the Chairman refused." The contention of the Committee is that had the
M.O.H. kept proper books he would have been able to recognise the street, either as
Pardoner Street or Henry Street. If this note book had been properly indexed he
would have been able to say the dates when he visited. It is, however, scarcely
necessary to consider this particular case further.
As regards the M.O.'s general observations on Boom-Disinfection, and the way in
which the disinfecting officers discharge their duties, your Committee are of opinion
that the doctor should have given a more detailed supervision. It is no doubt true
that the Chief Inspector gives instructions; but supervision and instructions are not
the same thing; and the M.O. is ultimately responsible. Either he is head of the
Department, or he is not. If he is head, then for any failure of duty on the part of
any subordinate official the Sanitary Authority look to him for report. Especially,
your Committee would have expected this to be the case, having regard to the constant
recommendations which the doctor has made as to the provision of a Kefuge House.
The system of disinfection which had obtained was admittedly inadequate. The
greater, therefore, the necessity for the M.O. to exercise far more detailed supervision
than is ordinarily to be expected of such officers. If the doctor had realized his
obligations in this particular (especially when regard is paid to the implicit confidence
which the Vestry had hitherto reposed in his ability), the method and system of disinfection
would long since have been reformed. But for the future, the Vestry should
decide whether the ultimate responsibility for the due discharge of duty by the disinfectors
should be in the M.O.'s or in the Chief Inspector's hands, your Committee
hold that the M.O. is, and should remain responsible.
As regards the exact connotation of the word "outbreak" in reference to the
Pardoner Street cases of scarlet fever, the interest is academic rather than practical.